500 words a day on whatever I want

“The dictionary was written by White people”

Some of the people who worked on the Oxford dictionary in 1976. Robert Burchfield, the Chief Editor, is the first person on the right.

“The dictionary was written by White people” is an argument that comes up when talking about racism and sexism, particularly when someone brings up the dictionary definition of racism. Since White people benefit from racism, their definitions concerning such things are assumed to be worthless at best, self-serving at worst.

I use the Oxford dictionary, so I will take it as an example. Its Chief Editor, just like James Bond and Doctor Who, is always a White man. There have been eight so far:

James Murray,

Henry Bradley,

William Craigie,

C.T. Onions,

Robert Burchfield,

Edmund Weiner,

John Simpson,

Michael Proffitt.

Likewise, in pictures I could find of people who worked on the Oxford dictionary, everyone seems to be White. For example, this one from 1976 (click to enlarge):

But even before I looked up any of that, I could tell it was mainly White: words from Black American English, for example, only make it into the dictionary after they cross over to White American use. Australian English words, meanwhile, are listed – even though Australian English has half as many speakers.

But the Whiteness of the Oxford dictionary goes far deeper than that. The English language itself has been, to date, largely by and for White people.

Eurocentrism and racism have become part of English itself: not just, say, the N-word, but also words like “terrorist”,”heathen” and “sub-Saharan Africa”, even seemingly innocent ones like “history”, “doctor” and “God”, which are conceived in a Western way.

If the next Chief Editor is, say, Nigerian, Pakistani or Singaporean, the dictionary might give more attention to non-White sorts of English. But the main meanings of the main words will still necessarily be the ones created by hundreds of years of White-majority use.

A good dictionary holds up a mirror to the language. It is based on a corpus, a large written sample, recording how words are used in practice. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It does not say how words should be used, but how they are used, like it or not.

English on the Internet is by far the biggest sample of written English. And that sample is (still) mainly White. It goes something like this:

74% European/White

16% Asian

7% African/Black

1% Native (Americas, Australia, Pacific)

2% Other

That is based on the the racial make-up of the top 25 countries that edited the English Wikipedia from 2009 to 2013. Countries that account for at least 1% of those edits:

36.3% US

16.2% Britain

6.2% Canada

5.1% India

4.1% Australia

1.8% Germany

1.5% Philippines

1.2% Netherlands

1.2% Italy

1.1% Ireland

1.0% Brazil

Mostly White-majority countries.

So:

Is the Oxford dictionary racist? Yes! But most of that racism comes from the English language itself, not those who write it. A Black-made dictionary would have many of the same issues – like a Confederate flag made in China.

To think and express yourself in English, you need to see the rocks of its racism and avoid them as best you can. Yet, like it or not, you still have get your points across through a racist medium.

“Made in China” (2011) by Collin Quashie, a Confederate flag made in China out of African motif fabrics.

So, Allen Shaw, are you suggesting that America is a white country, then? And that the other 37% of the population should just accept the Eurocentric editing of English dictionaries and the language itself? Also, you do know that Africa is comprised of many countries, right? In places like Kenya, Tanzania, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe and Ghana English is the official language. Not sure how your point about an “African dictionary” relates to these. Intelligent blacks know that some of the definitions in English dictionaries are dead wrong, as in the definition of racism that Abagond. Intelligent whites are waking up to the same realization. Intelligent blacks also speak in ways quite contrary to the rules of English while often using words that may never make it into English dictionaries.

It is always exciting in the film, Malcolm X, to ‘watch’ his epiphany reading the dictionary, first reading the entries for ‘black’ and then comparing ‘white’. If I am not mistaken, he had read the dictionary cover to cover.

What all these so called “dictionaries” obscure and confound is WHO created the “social construct” of RACE (in the first place) and who it has always benefited the most –

1. The elites. Race serves to keep those below (the elites) focused and misdirected/diverted AWAY from those that are financially robbing everyone else! While we’re contending with racism, we’re not contending against those at the top who are orchestrating this nonsense – and have been for hundreds of years!

2. Those who look like the elites. White people. To work and behave AGAINST their own best interests! They have been bought or compromised by the illusion of the Zero-Sum game. And the belief that others are less than… making them undeserving, or responsible for their own negative predicaments.

“Of course the English dictionary is for the “White” English.”
And what of the white Irish, Scottish and Welsh?

“Go to Africa and they will have an African dictionary. Or India and they will have their dictionary”.

Not sure what to make of this clever statement. I am in Africa and I have never heard of an African dictionary. So, if one goes to Europe, they will have a European dictionary and in Asia, an Asian dictionary and stopping over in India, they will have an Indian dictionary. Wow!
.

this from a potential blog post of mine,as for various reasons while I am interested ,I may not have all the resources nesscary to consistently publish and continously comunicate ,esp without serious bais and error – not that that stops alot of people.

however my primary point is most of your content specifically is dealing with areas of sociology and the specific issues effect psychologically.

And rest assured most of the comments and commentors will reference thier opinions with limited reference to the current data in the related field.
Also specifically in reference to the topic and primary point of this article its basically the same – if you go to any textbook or other source in regard to any general science or intellectual activity – yep white and specifically white male dominated, the more high staus the more exclusively white and male.

however this does not mean as some poc/blacks relfectively respond – philsolohpy,science acedemia etc is a “white” thing ;as many a black student has experienced – i.e. if you are intelligent or interested in reading and intellect your acting white – no your obviously too stupid to see and acknowledge the systemic racism we all live with in all areas of the world and virtually all activity.

but this awareness helps those of us who intuitively recognize this varible and strive to compansate if not remedy it.

Maybe Blacks should create their own dictionary if they are not fond of the current dictionary.

Yes I am aware that there are 57 nations in Africa. At one time there were thousands of accents or derivatives; however today most Africans who do not use the White English dictionary speak one or the few main base languages.

List of official, national and spoken languages of Africa. Africa is a continent with a very high linguistic diversity, there are an estimated 1500-2000 African languages.

I honestly think you are a senile old man who speaks on subjects without a clear grasp of it beyond what sounds good. Part of he reason why I am glad there are people from different areas to commenting to call you on your bs.

On the whole I liked this with its novel approach of examining the very reference manual we use – sometimes unquestionably – to challenge the very same thing we are critiquing. That is: Racism (white supremacy)

But I am puzzled by this apparent assessment…

“…Is the Oxford dictionary racist? Yes! But most of that racism comes from the English language itself, not those who write it…”

@taotesan: pauciloquent means few words as possible I love words thank you for bringing a new word for me to learn. Another new word I am having fun with Monachopsis to feel out of place. I am always in a constant state of Monachopsis.

This is an interesting topic I’ve never given this a thought but now my thoughts have been provoked and I see how language and words can be racialized. As a poster I learn something new everyday whether positive or negative from the author of this blog and the divergent viewpoints of posters. Good job Abagond once again.

The Oxford dictionary is a dictionary of British English. Britain is 92.12% white, 4.39% Asian, 1.95% black, and 1.54% other.

For American English, it would be better to look at the Merrian-Webster dictionary rather than the Oxford dictionary.

An interesting topic for a later article would be how black came to mean evil and white mean good. I have read a few theories about it. There is some evidence that points to the ancient Egyptians using black as evil. Others point to early black and white films as the modern source as white and black provided the best contrast at the time.

Ancient Egyptians had the complete opposite definition and use of black that Westerners have today. So I’d be interested in seeing whatever evidence you have.

In my opinion, black demonisation started in Medieval Europe/Western Asians.

The bible also speaks of black as a negative condition:

Job 30:30: “My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat”
Song of Solomon 1:5: “I am black, BUT comely…”
Song of Solomon 1:6: “Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me…”
Jeremiah 8:21: “For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black…”
Jeremiah 4:28: “For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black…”
Jeremiah 14:2: “Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground…”
Lamentations 5:10: “Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine…”

The meaning of the color black in ancient Egypt has multiple meaning. It represents Death and the Afterlife. Osiris and Anubis were portrayed with black faces.

It also meant fertility and resurrection and in that respect was interchangeable with green.

In another aspect, black was used to represent chaos and outsiders. Nubians were portrayed with black skin. Egyptian women were portrayed with yellow skin and men with red skin. Yet, black was also considered to control chaos.

I may have used evil by mistake but there is evidence that was a quick reply.

In 1925 people of color at least those who we call Black today were listed as Colored on their birth certificates. Shortly after World War II they demanded that they be called Negro and then Negroid. After that they demanded that they be called Black.

Now you’re complaining because you’re called Black!

Actions and not race define the future of individuals. Unfortunately in the United States many Blacks conjugate in large cities in separate sections which do not allow them to learn how to live with other races and ethnic groups. There is a large number of Blacks living in the South and among them there are both poor and rich. In the South there is a separation between Black and White; however among the Blacks those Blacks who are successful separate themselves from those who are not quite so successful.

Most of the intellectuals that comment on this blog probably don’t live in the poor black neighborhoods and are completely unaware of the difference between Blacks. On a comparative basis Blacks in the United States are as successful as Whites. Most Blacks do not look at the poverty and mental incapacity of White’s; they just see the successful Whites.

Yes this is from your jester-court jester letting you know that you know very little about Black people because you’ve isolated yourself, so you just think in terms of Blacks being withheld because of their race.

Finally, it doesn’t make any difference what people called themselves 2000 years ago or even 100 years ago, those Blacks that want to get ahead in this “world of money” are going to have to join the money group, but the majority of the members of the money group happen to be White.

By the way, why don’t you come up with a new name to call people with dark skin instead of complaining about a name? I am sure it will go into all of the “White” Dictionaries the same as all other new words do!

The English Dictionary and all current successful dictionaries add new words every year and cannot possibly be called a White Dictionary!

You may not be aware of it but you are an extremely biased group of people!

“On a comparative basis Blacks in the United States are as successful as Whites”

I read that in 1963, a majority of Euro-descent Americans held similar views.
They held those views even though,

“Whites Only” signs were still ubiquitous in public areas of the South.

There were still “sundown towns” where Black people could not reside or travel through at night.

Black people were being lynched by White mobs.

Many colleges and universities did not accept Black students.

Many White neighborhoods had legal covenants that restricted Black people (and others) from purchasing homes.

Not much has changed in real terms for African Americans 53 years later. If you believe that “Blacks… are as successful as Whites”, please provide a link (or three) to high quality demographic information that proves your point. I would love to read it.

I doubt that black only meant evil to Ancient Egyptians when they actually called their country “KMT” (Kemet) meaning “black land”. That word “kem” is also at the root of Alchemy and Chemistry.https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/km

Marco Polo also reported on what he observed on the Indian subcontinent:
[The Customs of the Kingdoms on India]

To turn now to other matters, it is a fact that in this country when a child is born they anoint him once a week with oil of sesame, and this makes him grow much darker than when he was born. For I assure you that the darkest man is here the most highly esteemed and considered better by the others who are not so dark. Let me add that in very truth these people portray and depict their gods and their idols black and their devils white as snow. For they say that God and all the saints are black and the devils are all white. That is why they portay them as I have described. And similarly they make the images of their idols all black.

And, as mentioned in another topic, even Europe had many representations of black Madonnas (Mary with baby Jesus) dating from the 12th to the 15th century. I definitely wouldn’t say that in all cultures and time periods people arrived at the conclusion that black equals bad. The “obviousness”, to us, of such a conclusion is really a product of our time and the history that set the stage for it.

@resw
“Blacks were called “black” “black” and “BLACKAMOORES” by English and Scottish monarchs as early as 1500.”

This reminds me of an little story related to classical music since it’s the first time I heard that term. There is documentation that suggests that Ludwig von Beethoven, the classical composer, was called a “blackamoore” in his lifetime. Apparently, someone thought his appearance was incongruous with his music. This has, at times, raised a few questions about his ethnicity. Curiously, there are reports that another great classical composer, Franz Joseph Haydn, who was born before Beethoven and outlived him, was called “blackamoor” and “the moor”. I wouldn’t say that their portraits reveal the basis for such nicknames though. Beethoven is rosy red in many. Are they accurate?

It is interesting that Europe was not as completely white in this era as people often think. For example, George Polgreen Bridgetower was an Afro-European violin virtuoso who was born in Poland. Beethoven knew him and even composed a sonata for him (Op.47, “Kreutzer”). It was meant to have been dedicated to him but they had a falling out and Beethoven changed the dedication to Rudolphe Kreutzer. I don’t have a strong opinion on whether Beethoven could have been black/multiracial but I notice that prominent historical figures and cultures tend to be whitewashed to fit white supremacist narratives. If that were the case here, it would fit the pattern.

By 1963 I doubt if you could find any lynching’s on the records. The United States Air Force was integrated the Army was integrated and Black Airmen, soldiers and sailors were stationed all over the United States.

While it is true that places are segregated there are places where Black people live that the average Black person cannot live.

I am not going to bother to provide you with statistics to demonstrate to you that the President of the United States is Black that many Black professors are heads of colleges that many doctors like Dr. Carson running for president, are out there and some Blacks are heads of major companies.

Keep reading your books about Egypt and attempting to somehow another relate to a group of people that very few American Blacks are associated with.

Once again I suggest that you turn your face towards sub-Saharan Africa and start trying to find out something about the Black race that exists in United States. In addition to that I suggest that you start reading about the conditions that existed with Blacks in the United States from the period of 1700s to 1965.

If you do not believe that the advances of the Black race have been fantastic, I cannot help you, you are blind!

“Most of the intellectuals that comment on this blog probably don’t live in the poor black neighborhoods and are completely unaware of the difference between Blacks.”—Again. Stop speaking for groups you know nothing about. Because I, like many of the intellectual of this blog, don’t need a senile moron speaking on what we think, do, etc.

“Most Blacks do not look at the poverty and mental incapacity of White’s; they just see the successful Whites.”—Wrong. We look at a white person. Success or anything else aside. In fact no black person regardless of background looks at a white person and mentally analyzes the idea of a “successful white”.

“Yes this is from your jester-court jester letting you know that you know very little about Black people because you’ve isolated yourself, so you just think in terms of Blacks being withheld because of their race.”—So your logic is black people don’t know black people because they isolated themselves? I swear if I was not still in school and working towards my license you would be a prime patient.

“You may not be aware of it but you are an extremely biased group of people!”—I admit I am biased against people with more than a few screws loose, but it would be unlike me not to point out that you are too. You have a white obsession that you expect all blacks to have in order to get ahead. You literally sound more off the mark the more you comment.

“If you do not believe that the advances of the Black race have been fantastic, I cannot help you, you are blind!”—No one said anything about not believing in it, so I will call your straw man what it is. The problem is you make a claim and dance around it to avoid you getting called on the liar you are.

“And, as mentioned in another topic, even Europe had many representations of black Madonnas ”

Right, they also had many representations of black patron saints, but they’re far less prevalent. Since Christians didn’t want to seem hypocritical, they had to demonise blacks in order to justify the Atlantic slave trade.

“There is documentation that suggests that Ludwig von Beethoven, the classical composer, was called a “blackamoore” in his lifetime. ”

Do you know what that documentation is? There are rumours that he had African ancestry, but I’ve never come across proof. But Angelo Soliman, an African composer, influenced both Mozart and Haydn, all of whom preceded Beethoven and Bridgetower.

“Beethoven is rosy red in many. Are they accurate?”

Well, he did live in the era when men wore red makeup, lol. But plenty of mixed people and other nonwhites are ruddy.

And Michael Jackson is a good example from our time. Sure he consented to the surgeries, but he did say “they” wanted him to do it. And now we see him being portrayed in Hollywood and Vegas by white men. I wonder what future generations will think of him.

@resw
“Well, he did live in the era when men wore red makeup, lol. But plenty of mixed people and other nonwhites are ruddy.”

Yeah, various non-white people can be quite fair. What I was saying is that if he appeared darker than usual to people who saw him (hence blackamoor) then that isn’t really reflected in most of his portraits.

“And now we see him [Michael Jackson] being portrayed in Hollywood and Vegas by white men. I wonder what future generations will think of him.”

His transformation was quite something and I don’t remember it being seriously addressed by M.J during his lifetime. We just all watched it unfold like a backdrop to his career. In his case whitewashing lost its figurative meaning.

I admitted that my claim that black = evil was a mistake. But I didn’t just pull it out of my ass. Unfortunately I don’t have the time to do heavy research anymore and sometimes my memory can be faulty and I can make mistakes. I am human, none of us are perfect.

But the meaning of the color black to ancient Egyptians has multiple definitions as I said in my second post. Some are negative and some are positive.

I knew Osiris sometime was portrayed with green skin but did not think it was important to the conversation

I brought up Egypt and black because there are some ancient history links to black as a negative color and thought it might be an interesting future post by Abagond,

Never the less, this is off topic to the original topic about the Oxford dictionary being written by white people. Which considering Oxford is a British institution and Great Britain is over 92% white is not surprising.

“What I was saying is that if he appeared darker than usual to people who saw him (hence blackamoor) then that isn’t really reflected in most of his portraits”

I just have never heard of that, do you have a reference? But my point was that he was a product of an era/society where men went the extra mile to look more white: powdering, wearing red makeup, wearing wigs, etc. So it’s no surprise that he’d and even George Bridgetower were whitened in their portraits.

“His transformation was quite something and I don’t remember it being seriously addressed by M.J during his lifetime.”

I recalled him saying “they” made him do it. I’ll try to find the video, although he’s also said some contradicting statements about his surgery too.

@Brian

“I admitted that my claim that black = evil was a mistake. But I didn’t just pull it out of my ass”

So you wrongly said it but got it from somewhere? Where did you get it?

“Some are negative and some are positive”

I’m still looking for the negative ones. Help me out here.

I understand that you got from someone’s website the association with death. As I said, just because Anubis’ face is black and Osiris is rarely painted black does not mean black represents “death” and the “afterlife.” This is an interpretation through Western lenses. Furthermore, your association of death with “negative” exemplifies your bias because there is no proof that ancient Egyptians viewed death, Anubis or Osiris as negative.

I also find it curious that you did not mention that the same site you referenced claims black also means “fertility” and “resurrection.”.

“Which considering Oxford is a British institution and Great Britain is over 92% white is not surprising.”

I think you’ve missed Abagond’s point, which I think is that Eurocentrism and racism are embedded in not just the dictionary definitions of words, but in the English language itself. Therefore, e.g., if one’s argument is “that’s not racist because racism is defined as x” (a common argument used in America) then it is unsound because that definition is a function of Eurocentrism and racism.

Fan…, it depends on the authors of the Oxford dictionary do their job. The Oxford dictionary is probably a better aid than hindrance because they include past definitions so you can see how the definition of a word has changed over time. I think Merriam-Webster does it similarly but dropping obscure definitions. Both dictionaries define the words based on how words are being used in the culture adding words as they become popular and widely used and dropping words as they fall out of usage.

Honestly, I think political correctness has been the biggest hindrance on defining racism because political correctness is nothing more than a way for people to hide the hurt. I am a big fan of George Carlin when it comes to his skits on language.

resw, Of course the Oxford dictionary is going to be Eurocentric. It is a British organization that is defining BRITISH English. The dictionaries and how the dictionaries define racism have nothing to do on whether or not somebody experiences or feels they have experienced racism. In fact I have never heard somebody use the dictionary definition to limit what was considered racism. I have heard people define racism more narrowly usually saying you have to have power to commit a racist act or something like that.

The simple M-W definition of racism is “poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race”. Every definition of racism I have read has been a colorblind definition. They are also usually open to a wide interpretation. You have got to work pretty hard to stay something is not racist because of the definition of racism.

The only simple route to your argument of “that’s not racist because racism is defined as x” being true is if the argument is over intent, i.e.: soandso wasn’t being racist because soandso didn’t do it because of race. Then we are getting into intent which is trying to read a person’s mind. Why did they do what they did and that has nothing to do with how a word is defined but what is in a person’s heart.

“Honestly, I think political correctness has been the biggest hindrance on defining racism because political correctness is nothing more than a way for people to hide the hurt. I am a big fan of George Carlin when it comes to his skits on language.”

.

I thought Carlin was an exceptional white dude because he saw through all the BS better than most! He’s probably spinning in his grave about now!!

But I gotta ask you another question… from where did political correctness – in your opinion – come from? Who are the people that hide behind the hurt, in your opinion?

1) the rich and powerful who don’t want to be bothered by the problems of the world.
2) special interest groups that want to protect people from being offended. That’s not a bad thing per se, but can lead to idiocy.
3) the media which wants as many people watching them and will go out of their way to avoid even potentially offending anybody.

But by giving into political correctness, it allows things to fester because they are not confronted and taken care of at an earlier time.

I think George Carlin put it best on the same album I linked to earlier:
“I think spokesman ought to be spokesperson. I think chairman ought to be chairperson. I think mankind ought to be human kind, but they take it too far, they take themselves too seriously, they exaggerate. They want me to call that thing in the street a personhole cover. I think that’s taking it a little bit too far.”

Sounds like you’re saying there’s a HUGE DISCONNECT between the reality of racism, and what whites generally believe is racism – usually based upon the dictionary.

I like to say that’s a CHASM bigger, wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon itself.

@ Brian

Interesting that you used the word “fester.” I think that’s an excellent analogy. A lady I’ve been listening to lately via youtube (Joy DeGruy) is stating, as others have too, that Amerika has refused to LANCE its way overgrown INFECTED BOIL.

There are forces that don’t want this BOIL lanced because having the BOIL remain is financially profitable AND advantageous as a distraction for their high crimes. So, if you’re saying that “political correctness” was invented to keep the status quo, I’d have to agree with you 100%!

Plus, lancing the boil would likely bring up more talk of reparations and we know that’s probably the biggest chasm, of all chasms … that some folks don’t want on the discussion table.

I don’t think Whites define racism in this way because it is in the dictonary – rather the other way around. The “thought-definition” of racism appeals to Whites because it deals with what matters most to them about racism: intent. While the “power+prejudice”-definition deals more with the effect, which matters more to non-white people. I think both definitions only capture an aspect of the phenomenon.

It is so inherent in the society that people take it as a given or are entirely unaware of it. They are so out of touch with themselves or society as a whole, they just simply do not give a care. It allows whites to assuage their conscience. It allows for stereotyping regardless of whether the stereotype is ‘positive’ or ‘negative’. It creeps into every aspect of a person’s life whether they realize it or not. It is so commonplace that it is ‘banal’. The epidemics of assaults, police abuses, mental and physical problems, self-loathing and general shiteosness experienced by Black folk and other racialized people (to whatever extent), is symptomatic of this. For whites, the heroin epidemic is symptomatic of them feeling their supremacy slipping away. Is it a noun or an adjective? Depends on what context you are using it for.

” It creeps into every aspect of a person’s life whether they realize it or not. It is so commonplace that it is ‘banal’. The epidemics of assaults, police abuses, mental and physical problems, self-loathing and general shiteosness experienced by Black folk and other racialized people (to whatever extent), is symptomatic of this. ”

Herneith,

Your comment above reminds me of:

Fish don’t see water, humans don’t see air and whites don’t see racism.

“Of course the Oxford dictionary is going to be Eurocentric….The dictionaries and how the dictionaries define racism have nothing to do on whether or not somebody experiences or feels they have experienced racism. ”

You’ve basically contradicted yourself. And you still seem to be missing the point that dictionary definitions are self-serving to the writers.

“In fact I have never heard somebody use the dictionary definition to limit what was considered racism. ”

Good for you. But I have heard it many times on this blog alone. Abagond has written a lot about racism, and commenters say things like, and I quote,

“I don’t think you are sticking to the definition of racism and possibly getting prejudism and racism confused or inter-twined.”

“I completely reject this attempt at changing the definition of the word. This is a perverse example of politics corrupting the language.”

“If racism is defined simply as feeling that one race is superior to another…I do not think most Whites are racist in the sense of harboring animosity toward Blacks”

@resw How did I contradict myself? I was not aware that somebody or something could be Eurocentric or American-centric and not able to write a definition that was simple and all-encompassing.

The first example that you gave are people defining words based on what THEY think the words should mean and not how the dictionaries define those words which I hinted on when I said ” I have heard people define racism more narrowly usually saying you have to have power to commit a racist act or something like that.”

I also talked about the third example: “The only simple route to your argument of “that’s not racist because racism is defined as x” being true is if the argument is over intent, i.e.: soandso wasn’t being racist because soandso didn’t do it because of race. Then we are getting into intent which is trying to read a person’s mind. Why did they do what they did and that has nothing to do with how a word is defined but what is in a person’s heart.”

One of the problems that the English language has is there is no ruling committee or group that controls the language. How the language is used varies on where you are. The language is used differently in the southeast US versus the northeast US. The dictionary companies are just that companies. The dictionaries are produced for an audience. Webster’s audience is different than Oxford’s which is different from Wiktionary which is different from the urban dictionary. Complaining that the Oxford dictionary is Eurocentric is like complaining that Tigers have stripes. The Oxford dictionary’s audience is the English speakers of Great Britain.

That tie-in between the heroin epidemic is quite thought provoking. The heroin addicts want to retreat into a drug-addled cave and let life pass them by.

The methamphetamine epidemic is still raging in rural North America. From what I’ve read about meth, it makes you feel like you can conquer the world. Meth addicts prize that energetic high of invincibility. That must be a pretty seductive feeling to people raised on superiority myths.

Because you acknowledge that the dictionaries are Eurocentric but at the same time say the definitions have nothing to do with the writers’ experiences. Is being Eurocentric not based on one’s own experience?

“The first example that you gave are people defining words based on what THEY think the words should mean”

No, they’re precisely arguing that Abagond’s definition of “racism” is wrong because it’s not the same as the dictionary definition of racism.

“Then we are getting into intent which is trying to read a person’s mind. ”

It is an argument based on the dictionary definition of racism. You said you “have never heard somebody use the dictionary definition to limit what was considered racism” and that’s precisely what was done in the 3 examples I gave you.

“Complaining that the Oxford dictionary is Eurocentric is like complaining that Tigers have stripes”

I’m starting to think you are deliberately ignoring the point. Who is complaining that Oxford is Eurocentric? I’d suggest you re-read Abagond’s post

heroin addict: n. white middle class addict of the opiate, heroin, in need of urgent intervention.
junkie: n. lower class white or person of colour (criminal) addicted to the opiate, heroin, also see crackhead, where treatment is long- term incarceration.

If you want to uphold the infallibility of the dictionary , google the economics and history of the tomato in the US how it entered the lexicon as a fruit, the recent absence of ‘nude’ in Merriam-Websters, the hundred year error of ‘siphon’ and the sexist language of male lexicographers:

They see too much. Many choose to ‘ignore’ what they see and seek white approval(Kumbaya ideology), give white supremacist/racist a pass as being just ‘ignorant,’ etc. My biggest pet peeve is those fellow Blacks who strive for the white supremacist’s approval despite the abuse meted out to them. The only approval to be garnered from whites is economic. Otherwise, stay away from most of them in your personal sphere at least if you can. I am living in a predominately white country Canada, approximately 2.5%. I still manage to avoid having personal interactions in my personal life. As for the public one, it’s unavoidable and unrealistic.

” My biggest pet peeve is those fellow Blacks who strive for the white supremacist’s approval despite the abuse meted out to them. The only approval to be garnered from whites is economic.Otherwise, stay away from most of them in your personal sphere at least if you can. I am living in a predominately white country Canada, approximately 2.5%. I still manage to avoid having personal interactions in my personal life. As for the public one, it’s unavoidable and unrealistic.”

* LIKE !!!

.

“..Blacks who strive for the white supremacist’s approval despite the abuse meted out to them.”

Unfortunately, that’s a slave’s MENTAL condition meme passed down from generation to generation some of us still suffer from.

I waited for a strong and clear-eyed response from Herneith and was not disappointed.

This comment especially cut to the bone:“My biggest pet peeve is those fellow Blacks who strive for the white supremacist’s approval despite the abuse meted out to them.”

So true. Those sleepwalking Black people can’t see that the “approval” they seek will never materialize. Never!

Fan, what I believe Black people don’t see is that they are not helpless, powerless or inadequate. We have been propagandized over generations to believe that we are less than others and deserving of only the worst that life has to offer. The propaganda is an ongoing project that takes a slightly different twist every generation. From the first “slave seasoners” to the “blame and shame” media barrage that Black Lives Matter activists (and the rest of the community) are hit with for demanding an end to lynching police killings. The purpose is to keep the majority of Black people from ever trying to uplift themselves and their communities.

I think this long-term propaganda effort is based in the fear of the White Supremacist who needs Black suffering to justify their ideology. After all, how superior would White Supremacists feel if Black people (in the Americas, Africa and Europe) were healthy, whole and thriving? How rich and powerful would France, Japan, China, the UK and the US be if they weren’t looting African resources?

Imagine what an assembly (or multiple assemblies) of the best and brightest (GENIUS) African/Black minds from every nation (all nations) might divulge, or come up with in terms of stopping white-supremacy – if these minds after a series of conferences might come up with a general agreement or a host of ideas.

(I think there are much better users of English syntax here that are better able to state what I’m suggesting here. Anywho – if this Black global THINK TANK of our smartest and brightest, or whatever, has already occurred, could someone pull my sleeve …?)

“I think this long-term propaganda effort is based in the fear of the White Supremacist who needs Black suffering to justify their ideology.”

” Bang on!”

My understanding why they have not exterminated Blacks en masse, is to keep us half-alive and empty ours minds of our own history and that they do not have to lift a finger, that hatred implanted in us so we can finish the job against ourselves.

Their being is predicated on Black suffering. They need us more than we need them. Although it does not not seem that way to too many captured minds.

Two points I would like to make, although it wont make a dent in Densans like Allen Shaw. There are millions of Africans and Africans in diaspora and other colonized people, eg Indian, Aborigine whose languages were for forbidden/eradicated by the English colonialists and enslavers. In my case, colonial languages were imposed upon us, such as English and Afrikaans, which I absolutely hate. There are very few Nama speakers left- one of the languages of the San that is near extinction. The right also to communicate in Xhosa and Nama on my mother’s side and fathers side, Malay and Zulu, forbidden ( my late grandmother the only one in our family to speak Zulu) by colonial eradication and apartheid entrenchment of separate development through amongst many other laws , inferior education through missionary and colonial tongue education.

Another commenter said that the Oxford dictionary is for the British. Really? It has been one of the dictionaries with a huge distribution in South Africa. (including the South African Concise OED) . Unless one only takes white South Africans of British extraction into consideration. I take it by some of commenters that The Oxford English Dictionary (or any English dictionary) is meant for (British) white citizens. Not British citizens. Not English speakers of African or Indian or *First Nations descent. What can we infer from that?

I checked the use of Aboriginal and the offensive term: Aborigine. (Apology to any First Nations readers).

Not in any of the three OED dictionaries- including an illustrated and South African edition that I own, calls out that the latter is offensive. Not one of them , at best, denotes it as old-fashioned or outdated or ‘can be considered offensive.’

far be it from me to say something, but… so you see the gyrations the native american community is going through with ‘percentages’ and so forth — then is melanated skin the only salient property of ‘black’ as in a person? maybe someone could suggest an alternate word or definition because it happens all the time or there would be only one dictionary per language!

The inadequate dictionary definition of ‘racism’ whether prescriptive or descriptive, which had entered the lexicon in 1902, has undergone linguistic evolution which still excludes the words ‘European domination/ dominance in its definition. So in the foreground of the last 50 odd years in the US and Africa and + – 22 years in South Africa of white people accusing Black people of racism, with the background of the white lexicographers still defining it in biased way to include the victims of white subjugation of it Embedded in the white supremacy is the seamless and instant self-exoneration with the simultaneous transference and projection of ALL white psychopathy. With centuries of history of racism/white supremacy preceding its coinage in the Oxford English Dictionary, listed below is the modern day knee jerk reaction of white people to their racism. I am not the first person to articulate this.

1. They are resentful and bitter that they have had to concede the privilege of being totally in control of public consensus and discourse on racism . A subjugated/oppressed person of Colour could have dogs set on them, arrested, verbally and physically abused, tortured for any perceived slight against any member of the ‘superior’ dominating ‘race’. Going against a white person in any way in the very slightest, could cause riots or get many arbitrary innocent people being terrorized or killed (The Native Son) and in the US, lynched. All this with the full sanction of the state. It was/is legal for white people to terrorize citizens in the land of their birth. [ I am thinking about Steve Biko ,Bigger,Sandra Bland , Emmet Till and many others]

2. The degree to which we are now empowered to speak out against racism is a measure of the hard fought for civil and human rights and erosion of unjust absolute white power wielded and privileges and advantages enjoyed, that was achieved through the collective of oppressed people efforts to free themselves from injustice. So when white people get bent out of shape in the courageous and straightforward act of calling them out on their racism, they take the greatest umbrage of having lost some of their white advantages and privileges (esp. and incl. the carte-blanche to oppress totally without any consequence).

3. The worst thing you can call a white person, from their perspective, is a ‘racist’ .And when they say “but Black people can be racist too” and flailing ”see, see, the dictionary say so” they take exceptional umbrage, in deflecting, in what must be an extreme affront to their self-image, especially from their perceived inferiors.
4. An automatic, perfected conditioned response of millennial self-exoneration, from the genesis of racism- European chattel enslavement of African people. Behind the façade of innocence is the complete understanding, in tossing the lobbed grenade of racism oppressed people’s way that Transatlantic reparations, African land restitution and colonial reparations can never be addressed.

There a few more reasons listed above.

They can whip out their fallible white dictionaries to exonerate themselves. This disingenuous and crafty behaviour is not new, but one of many in their arsenal of the refining and perfecting of their very own invention- ‘racism’.

There was no real need to call us ‘racists’ back then, because they (Europeans and European descendants) had full rights and full advantages to oppress us and call us any their favourite dehumanizing names of which some have only recently entered in the lexicon as offensive. Of course, that does not stop them from using their favourite pejoratives and calling Black people racists. And the irony of calling them out on that would be totally lost on them.

How ever is one to address the most things on the planet, like reparations for European chattel slavery and reparations for the most massive crimes against humanity if we do not have surgically precise definition to describe the greatest sociological phenomenon in human history? I am not saying that the fight against must stop until we arrive at an accurate definition.

The Oxford dictionary does not reflect the most stringent research, omitting consensus of the mostly highly contested word. Otherwise, it would have distilled the definition by including English speaking people of African heritage and other marginalized groups’ academics, social and political activists, intellectuals, etc. to describe with accurate brevity the greatest sociological/social project/ phenomenon. Instead, it relies solely on Eurocentric biased watered down definition of its liberal privileged class.

• Prescriptive: So the definition has not changed that much, although the language is in flux. If at some stage in the last century the dictionary changed from prescriptiveness to descriptiveness. So whose language are they describing? In any of the definitions, it does not prescribe with precise pauciloquence the greatest human phenomenon over the last five centuries.

• DescrIptive: In changing to descriptive mode, it does not capture the zeitgeist of the lived experience of the objects of the phenomenon but of the zeitgeist of the subjects: the white dominating /dominant group. Its description reflects the white watered down version of a phenomenon that Europeans and their descendants had invented, yet fail to capture accurately.

• White English speakers insist that their language not be mangled and correct usage be adhered to, yet do not have qualms in throwing prejudice, bigotry, etc into one basket , wielding the the dictionary as a rhetorical weapon of choice. There are also distinctions between ethnocentrism, religious intolerance, tribalism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia.

The language also has , for example, distinct nuances and differences for the act of killing: murder, manslaughter, infanticide, abortion, euthanasia, uxoricide, sororicide crime passionnel, regicide, parricide, lynching,etc. The American war against Iraq has spawned a slew of euphemistic 1984 words for ‘to kill’.

• Cf . Hypnagogic jerk and myoclonic jerk, velleity and ennui , knowledge and ken and so on.
• English has highly specific words, eg. for the morbid fear of peanut butter sticking to to the roof one’s mouth, eg. arachibutyrophobia and triskaidekaphobia, the fear of the number thirteen.
The language abounds with many other examples.

Yet it has not one SPECIFIC word for that sociological phenomenon of the ‘conscious or unconscious inherent belief in white or European superiority or supremacy and the right of that group to use power to dominate Africans, Asians and First Peoples’,as any of current definitions are anything to go by.

This article and the comments are asinine. Complaining about a White language dictionary being too White? Of course, it makes sense to a liberal mind, because liberalism is by its design, anti-White. There is nothing within liberalism that supports Whites. It is anti-White by its very purpose. And by the way, there are no black African dictionaries, because there don`t need to be. Black African languages are so limited that they exist only in the minds of the speakers. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoNhacojmM)

[…] The majority of writers for popular and academic dictionaries have been white men. In the western world, as there are systems in place which privilege white people, it is not surprizing to see that the definition of racism put forward by white men is inaccurate. They are socialized to believe that the racism people of color experience is in any way comparable to the “racism” white people experience (i.e. being called out for perpetrating and upholding white supremacy). There is simply no credibility in white people defining racism. […]